SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 1285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M. CHHAYA, MAUNA M. BHATT, JJ.
Amjiba Wd/o. Narendrasinh Alias Kalusinh Champaksinh Dabhi & Others - Appellants
Versus
Lilaram Johrilal Yadav & Others - Defendants
R/First Appeal No. 2370 of 2019
Decided On : 16-11-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Kaash K. Thakkar.
For the Defendant : Mr. Tanmay B. Karia.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct determination of the deceased's income and the application of principles of consortium as established by relevant Apex Court cases.

Headnote:

Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - 166 - 8, 9 - 34,27,200/-, 2,00,000/-, 15,000/-, 15,000/-, 50,000/-

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was driving his tractor when a trailer driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with the tractor, resulting in the deceased's death. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deceased's income was incorrectly determined by the Tribunal and adjusted it to Rs. 15,000/- per month. It also awarded compensation for loss of dependency, consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and medical bills, totaling Rs. 37,07,200/-. The court upheld the interest rate set by the Tribunal and ordered the Insurance Company to deposit the additional amount with interest and costs.

Issues: The main issue was the determination of the deceased's income and the entitlement to compensation for the claimants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence provided by the deceased's employer to determine the deceased's income and applied the principles of parental and filial consortium as established by the Apex Court in relevant cases. The court also upheld the interest rate set by the Tribunal.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the Insurance Company was ordered to deposit the additional compensation amount with interest and costs. The rest of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal remained unaltered.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the judgement and award dated 7.2.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.90 of 2017, the appellants-original claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)

2. Heard Mr. Kaash Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. Tanmay Karia, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3 – IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. As the liability is not denied, presence of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not essential for deciding the present appeal and with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

3. Draft amendment submitted by the appellants to enhance the appeal stands allowed. The same may be carried out forthwith.

4. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal.

4.1. According to the appellants-claimants, deceased Narendrasinh @ Kalusinh Champaksinh Dabhi was proceeding towards village Aatroli on 4.4.2017 driving his tractor bearing registration No. GJ-8-AP-0253. It is the case of the appellants that at about 1:00 p.m. when the tractor reached Chekhla Patia, respondent No.1 herein who was driving a Trailer bearing registration No. RJ-32-GA-9196 came from the behind and as the said Trailer was being driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the tractor driven by the deceased from behind because of which, the deceased sustained serious injuries and was admitted in ICU at Mehsana hospital. The record indicates that on 9.4.2017, the deceased expired during the treatment. An FIR was lodged with the jurisdictional of the policestation. The appellants-claimants preferred the Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs.

4.2. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was a skilled worker and was working as a Mason with the construction company since three years. The wife of the deceased was examined at Exh.23 and appellants also relied upon the oral evidence of Mr. Ankit Pravinchandra Pathak that is the employer of the deceased at Exh.38. The appellants-claimants also relied upon other documentary evidence such as school leaving certificate of deceased at Exh.30, copy of the FIR at Exh.32, panchnama of the scene of accident at Exh.33, inquest panchnama at Exh.34, PM note at Exh.35, copy of the driving licence of the Trailer and RC book of the Trailer at Exhs. 36 and 37 respectively. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record determined the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- p.m. and and also considered increase in income, by way of prospective income to the tune of 40%, deducted 1/5th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 17 awarded a sum of Rs.11,42,400/- as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Over and above the same following the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 awarded Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses and also awarded Rs.50,000/- towards medical reimbursement and thus awarded total compensation of Rs.12,62,400/- with 9% interest. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

5. Mr. Kaash Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has heavily relied upon the deposition of Mr.Ankit Pravinchandra Pathak, the employer of the deceased as well as the certificate dated 5.6.2017 at Exh.39 and has further contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in determining the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- p.m. Mr. Kaash Thakkar, learned advocate further referring to the cross-examination of the said witness contended that the Insura

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top